After "revolutionary" changes in Final Cut Pro X caused an uproar among industry professionals, Apple representatives revealed during a recent briefing in London that the company is looking into allowing existing enterprise clients to purchase additional copies of Final Cut Pro 7.

Attendees at the private briefing, which took place on Wednesday, reported that Apple is looking into the legal ramifications of reopening enterprise licenses of Final Cut Pro 7.

Although industry professional Sam Johnson (via alex4d) originally claimed that Apple would definitely resume licenses "in the next few weeks," company representatives quickly contacted him to set the record straight, saying it is only "looking into" the possibility at this stage. Blogger Peter Wiggins has noted that Apple's issue is a legal one.

The Cupertino, Calif., company did confirm at the meeting that Final Cut Studio 3 has been discontinued. Wiggins noted that Color and all the other apps have been "killed off." AppleInsider exclusively reported last month that Final Cut Express, Server and Studio had been marked "end of life" by Apple.

The main purpose of the gathering was to present a working demo of Final Cut Pro X to attendees. According to Wiggins, the software "for the first time looked pretty good with somebody working itwho knew what they were doing. Very slick compared to some of the recent 'stumblethroughs I've seen."

During the briefing, Apple promised a range of updates in coming months, with XSAN support arriving in "the next few weeks." Some of the updates will cost money, while others will be free. The addition of multicam support will reportedly be a free upgrade, though Wiggins noted that Apple's employee may have said it "accidentally."

Final Cut Pro X launched late last month and immediately sparked a controversy over drastic changes to the software and missing features. Since then, Apple has taken a variety of tactics to mitigate concerns over the release. FCP product managers responded to some initial complaints and the company has posted a list of frequently asked questions. A number of dissatisfied customers have reported receiving refunds from Apple.

But, in spite of Apple's efforts, a growing number of video professionals have dubbed the software "iMovie Pro" and disavowed it. AppleInsider was first to report last year that Apple planned to scale Final Cut to better match the needs of "prosumer and advanced home users."

As dissatisfaction with the application has grown, Adobe, which makes the competing non-linear editing software Premiere Pro, has jumped at the opportunity. After launching a PR offensive, the company announced a "switcher program" that offers Final Cut Pro users a 50 percent discount on the company's Creativev Suite 5.5 Production Premium or Premiere Pro CS5.5.

i've gone through the fcp x training provided by ripple training. the presenter made more comparisons to imovie than he did to fcp 7. i'm by no means an industry professional when it comes to film but i've used fcp 7, imovie, and now fcp x. the presenter's references, the new interface, and the functionality (that which was modified and that which was dropped) all convince me that this is "imovie pro" rather than "final cut pro".

I don't think Apple realized how many people in the video editing community are out of touch with the rest of the software and tech industry. I think they figured editing professionals would know, as everyone else familiar with software releases already knows, that when Apple says they started over and made everything from scratch, that means features are going to have to be developed over again. Apparently many video editing professionals do not understand what it takes to FUNDAMENTALLY improve something like Final Cut Pro. That's okay though. If they can't keep up, I'm sure there are plenty of sharper new companies to take their place.

I don't think Apple realized how many people in the video editing community are out of touch with the rest of the software and tech industry. I think they figured editing professionals would know, as everyone else familiar with software releases already knows, that when Apple says they started over and made everything from scratch, that means features are going to have to be developed over again. Apparently many video editing professionals do not understand what it takes to FUNDAMENTALLY improve something like Final Cut Pro. That's okay though. If they can't keep up, I'm sure there are plenty of sharper new companies to take their place.

Ripping out key features of a software and rapidly recalling the previous version of a software is what's needed to FUNDAMENTALLY improve said software?

That's okay though. If Apple can't keep up, I'm sure there are plenty of sharper companies to take their place.

Let the resistance from FCP users be proof to the haters that Apple fans aren't "sheeple". When Apple screws up, they will be raked over the coals even more vehemently.

Yeah, but it took some time for some of the "sheeple" to realise what a mistake by Apple this was. The first week of posts on AppleInsider were extremely defensive and sunk to the point of, "Well, if you can't use FCPX you're not a good editor anyways". It still continues, see post #4 above.

Ripping out key features of a software and rapidly recalling the previous version of a software is what's needed to FUNDAMENTALLY improve said software?

That's okay though. If Apple can't keep up, I'm sure there are plenty of sharper companies to take their place.

They didn't rip anything out. They started over. They really threw everything out. This is how you make genuinely improved things. If you keep just adding stuff on you end up with Adobe applications, or Microsoft applications. Do some people like those kinds of applications? Sure they do. But those are the people and companies that eventually get taken down by companies who's priority is squarely on making things as good as they possibly can, even if changing things upsets people.

Yeah, but it took some time for some of the "sheeple" to realise what a mistake by Apple this was. The first week of posts on AppleInsider were extremely defensive and sunk to the point of, "Well, if you can't use FCPX you're not a good editor anyways". It still continues, see post #4 above.

Is someone that can't use FCPX really a good editor? Maybe in some environments they are but if they're so inflexible it really does bring in to question their basic computer competency. They really sound like they have to follow a printed out step by step guide taped to the desk and that FCPX completely threw them for a loop.

How sad that the enormous efforts of Apple's teams go completely unappreciated when all their goal ever was, was to make things better.

They didn't rip anything out. They started over. They really threw everything out. This is how you make genuinely improved things. If you keep just adding stuff on you end up with Adobe applications, or Microsoft applications. Do some people like those kinds of applications? Sure they do. But those are the people and companies that eventually get taken down by companies who's priority is squarely on making things as good as they possibly can, even if changing things upsets people.

Fair enough, they started over, which is commendable. But they forgot to put "back" some essential features. Microsoft Office is full of bloated nonsense, I agree. But unfortunately nobody has really gone for their jugular, even though some have made attempts that got halfway.

Adobe is slightly different... There are a lot of features but CS4 and CS5 are fairly smooth to operate on a recent Mac. Adobe did a lot of re-writing along the way, without having to start from scratch. They did the transition to Intel, then Cocoa and 64-bit as well. No small feat.

Is someone that can't use FCPX really a good editor? Maybe in some environments they are but if they're so inflexible it really does bring in to question their basic computer competency. They really sound like they have to follow a printed out step by step guide taped to the desk and that FCPX completely threw them for a loop.

How sad that the enormous efforts of Apple's teams go completely unappreciated when all their goal ever was, was to make things better.

Whoa. You're going to judge someone on the ability to use a totally new software with less features? Have you been in an edit suite? Do you really think they follow a printed step-by-step guide? I know you're exaggerating a little for effect, but do you realise the processes and workflows involved in high-end editing?

The effort of Apple's teams on FCPX are not unappreciated. They were just misdirected.

How cute. Too bad 'cute' doesn't also make you right. Any cogent argument you might have made with the first point you threw away completely with the self-indulgent second.

Well, it was a play on the original words of the poster I replied to. A little naughty perhaps, but hey, I'm no goody-goody.

But it is a valid point. If Apple can't supply the editing tools needed by a certain segment of the market, then that segment will go to other companies. I didn't say Apple was going to go under because of this and be overtaken completely.

Apple didn't make FCPX for fun. They made it to make editing faster and easier. If someone says they're good at video editing and can't use the faster and easier software then how good at editing are they really?

Apple didn't make FCPX for fun. They made it to make editing faster and easier. If someone says they're good at video editing and can't use the faster and easier software then how good at editing are they really?

There are two assumptions you're making. The first is that FCPX genuinely makes editing faster and easier.

The second assumption you're making is that faster and easier means better editing.

It's possible FCPX does both for some needs, and it doesn't for other needs. We've seen in previous threads where it does both, and where it really doesn't.

Optimist that I am, I produced five three-minute videos for a client using FCP-X. It's not something I'll ever do again. Sure, FCP=X is fun. Sixty-four bit power, background rendering, the magnetic timeline and the metadata-based approach to bin management are innovative.

But basic tools, such as keyframing within color correction, round tripping to audio programs, After Effects and even Motion have been eliminated or hamstrung. If Apple thinks functions within FCP-X take the place of Soundtrack Pro or Color, they're from another planet.

I remain an Apple fanboy, but the Clan from Cupertino isn't developing applications for me. I get that. Just keep the platform alive enough so that other vendors can. Please don't suggest you're still interested in the needs of professionals. It's okay.

Optimist that I am, I produced five three-minute videos for a client using FCP-X. It's not something I'll ever do again. Sure, FCP=X is fun. Sixty-four bit power, background rendering, the magnetic timeline and the metadata-based approach to bin management are innovative.

But basic tools, such as keyframing within color correction, round tripping to audio programs, After Effects and even Motion have been eliminated or hamstrung. If Apple thinks functions within FCP-X take the place of Soundtrack Pro or Color, they're from another planet.

I remain an Apple fanboy, but the Clan from Cupertino isn't developing applications for me. I get that. Just keep the platform alive enough so that other vendors can. Please don't suggest you're still interested in the needs of professionals. It's okay.

Now those do sound like legitimate complaints. But what makes you assume Apple will never update to address them?

Now those do sound like legitimate complaints. But what makes you assume Apple will never update to address them?

I know you are asking another poster, but let me chime in on this.

Apple will certainly update to address the issues. That will only improve FCPX and I think after 2 years make it a better solution for many editors. However, there may be some features that will never make it back due to how they rewrote it. As such, there will be some, probably high-end editors, that will stick to FCP7 as long as possible, then switch to something else that meets their needs.

We don't know what exactly will happen. But that doesn't change what has happened with FCPX.

Now those do sound like legitimate complaints. But what makes you assume Apple will never update to address them?

The problem I see is that it's admittedly incomplete and not yet ready for everyone, and for those work flows, relies heavily on future third party products that simply aren't there yet. They'd also previously cut off support for anyone trying to bide their time on the previous version while they wait it out. The dust simply hasn't settled, and it can take considerable time for it to do so.

As it is, it is disheartening to see someone belittle said user base so incessantly as you have, I think that's a bit unnecessary.

Whoa. You're going to judge someone on the ability to use a totally new software with less features? Have you been in an edit suite? Do you really think they follow a printed step-by-step guide? I know you're exaggerating a little for effect, but do you realise the processes and workflows involved in high-end editing?

The effort of Apple's teams on FCPX are not unappreciated. They were just misdirected.

So people who are satisfied with the existing feature set should have had to wait until ALL the features were complete to use FCPX?

Apple's biggest (and really, only) mistake was discontinuing FCP7. If they had sold it for a year or two, along with FCPX while the latter achieved parity, there would have been no outcry (rightfully so).

In fact, Apple has gone through a similar transition before. The Mac OS -> Mac OS X transition. Apple did not kill off Mac OS for about 2 years after Mac OS X was available to the public.

I don't think Apple realized how many people in the video editing community are out of touch with the rest of the software and tech industry. I think they figured editing professionals would know, as everyone else familiar with software releases already knows, that when Apple says they started over and made everything from scratch, that means features are going to have to be developed over again. Apparently many video editing professionals do not understand what it takes to FUNDAMENTALLY improve something like Final Cut Pro. That's okay though. If they can't keep up, I'm sure there are plenty of sharper new companies to take their place.

+1. That's likely exactly what was going on.

Also I'd like to see some numbers and some names. Just how many copies have been sold, how many folks were demanding refunds and who they are. Cause frankly hearing gripes about this or that feature being missing means a lot when it is a studio pro that would actually be using it versus some wedding videographer that has never used said feature and has no reason to but wants to gripe cause he feels he's been cheated since it isn't there.

You show me Walter Murch (an absolute god in the realm of pro editing) decry this update for example. Or Coppola. Or the Coen Brothers etc. Show me them vowing to switch because this move was a total douche play and the software blows donkey poop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

Ripping out key features of a software

But they didn't rip out the key features. They ripped out everything but the key features. THe only thing that is a potential issue is the lack of importing from other versions of Final Cut. But then again. you have the disks, reinstall it. If you are worried that it won't run under lion, Sabertooth etc, keep your snow leopard disk too. Most pro shops do anyway. THey don't need that 'feature' right now because no pro is going to change over to software they don't know mid project. That's suicide.

Not everyone needs Export to Tape or XML and so on. Those that do will get it. Those that don't will whine because they feel they are getting gypped over something they will never use anyway

Apple didn't make FCPX for fun. They made it to make editing faster and easier. If someone says they're good at video editing and can't use the faster and easier software then how good at editing are they really?

Hahaha. Look, my DV video clips actually have their audio in iMovie, I figured FCP X would be better. Sure, better if I want to work on silent home movies - it imported the damned events from iMovie and dumped the audio.* iMovie - no problem. QuickTime - no problem. Handbrake - no problem. FCP X - no audio. WTF!?

And the thing is, I'm irritated and I'm NOT a professional video editor. Yanking working features out for a 'really solid foundation'... it's like saying Snow Leopard (which implemented major 64-bit and multithreading changes) should have shipped without Finder and networking because, hey, sometimes you just gotta clean things up! Sure, but you're going to alienate users if that's your approach. Not even an import feature for old projects? WTF indeed.

(And let's for arguments sake say I don't have a time machine to get the same scenes over again with a AVCHD camera...)

So people who are satisfied with the existing feature set should have had to wait until ALL the features were complete to use FCPX?

Apple's biggest (and really, only) mistake was discontinuing FCP7. If they had sold it for a year or two, along with FCPX while the latter achieved parity, there would have been no outcry (rightfully so).

In fact, Apple has gone through a similar transition before. The Mac OS -> Mac OS X transition. Apple did not kill off Mac OS for about 2 years after Mac OS X was available to the public.

Really silly move on their part, IMO.

You quoted my post in your response, I think by mistake. I agree with everything you're saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna

You show me Walter Murch (an absolute god in the realm of pro editing) decry this update for example. Or Coppola. Or the Coen Brothers etc. Show me them vowing to switch because this move was a total douche play and the software blows donkey poop.

I'll make it easier for everyone. Show me Coppola or the Coen Brothers using FCPX by this year for a major-release full-length feature (not indies or documentaries).

Wonder what the legal ramifications of merely continuing to sell FCP7 licenses to existing owners would be? Apple owns it and can do what they want it can't they? Are they thinking of support?

Some of it is support. They aren't going to add features etc but they will likely fix security issues and some bugs. Especially they went on record that FCP7 will run under Lion. If they find something that prevents that, they will have to fix it or face a PR nightmare

But the core is actually probably licensing. Folks don't consider that some of these features that were removed could have been tech that Apple doesn't own or isn't public domain. So they had to license it. Removing those things, especially since a lot of them aren't universally needed, is possibly part of what brought costs down. If they allow more seats they could be in violation of licensing agreements that have ended. So they have to sort that out before they say yes. But the owning companies could always say no. Especially if they have created or could create a plug in to give users the same functionality at a better profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

I'll make it easier for everyone. Show me Coppola or the Coen Brothers using FCPX by this year for a major-release full-length feature (not indies or documentaries).

First off, Indies and Docus are just as much a major release etc as a Studio production

Second, Folks like Coppola etc aren't stupid. They aren't going to be using a program they don't know. So it is very plausible they won't start working with until the first of the year for anything more than cutting a trailer for practice work or a short film. Same for tv shows etc. Its just how the Pros roll

First off, Indies and Docus are just as much a major release etc as a Studio production

Second, Folks like Coppola etc aren't stupid. They aren't going to be using a program they don't know. So it is very plausible they won't start working with until the first of the year for anything more than cutting a trailer for practice work or a short film. Same for tv shows etc. Its just how the Pros roll

Hmm... Your post agreed with franktinsley that video professionals should be able to keep up. Then you mentioned Coppola etc. decrying FCPX would be required to show it wasn't suitable. But you also said, but give them a year first.

Overall this would suggest that lower-end editors should switch to FCPX. Higher-end editors should wait a year... Only thing is, they're the ones that need FCP7 and additional FCP7 seats to continue to do their work.

So it appears FCPX isn't ready for prime time for high-end editors, either because it is not suitable or because pros need a year to acclimatise. Did I get that right? Will we thus have to wait until next year to see if FCPX is really up to the task or are the reviews and testing done so far by a range of pros sufficient?

Edit: I'm not trying to be aggressive or a smartass, just sinking my teeth a little into this debate.

I've been an editor for over 25 yrs. I've seen a lot of tech come and go. I haven't seen FCPX in the flesh, but from the reviews, and knowing what I do about Apple. I can see where they are headed with this but the BIGGER question is....How did they get it so WRONG!!

Large companies can get myopic quickly. Too many yes men, not enough outside input. The seeds of this situation were sown when Apple stopped exhibiting at NAB and severely limited the input they got from users. On top of that I've suspected for some time that when they DID want input they tended to lean more toward film industry editors than broadcast editors. (odd considering Jobs is on the Board of directors of DIsney/ABC) Completely different workflow. There's the rub.

In Apple's vision of the world physical distribution of content is dead. Therefore who needs IO cards and breakout boxes anymore than we do floppies? Like so many Apple products FCPX sounds like it has a functional yet elegant simplicity about it. It could very well be the editor of the future....

...it's just that a lot of us (most of us?) aren't there yet. We work, dare I say it, Differently We need what our workflow demands, a vendor who realizes that and stands with us, and the future can wait until I get this project done.

You show me Walter Murch (an absolute god in the realm of pro editing) decry this update for example. Or Coppola. Or the Coen Brothers etc. Show me them vowing to switch because this move was a total douche play and the software blows donkey poop.

Not everyone needs Export to Tape or XML and so on. Those that do will get it. Those that don't will whine because they feel they are getting gypped over something they will never use anyway

I'm sorry but you're wrong. I work in TV and Feature Film editing. Even if someone like the Coen Brothers wanted to edit True Grit on FCPX right now - they couldn't. It's missing too many necessary features: export to tape, edl, omf, audio track assignment, etc... For a high end feature film like True Grit or The Social Network, these features aren't just nice to have - they are necessary. You cannot actually edit the film without them. You need these features in order to work with your sound house, color correction facilities, visual effects houses, etc... In fact, everything that airs on broadcast TV also needs these features. The lower end the production the less necessary these features become. Editors who work in corporate videos, industrials, web productions might be able to get by without these features. But prestige projects like big budget movies must have them.

Now those do sound like legitimate complaints. But what makes you assume Apple will never update to address them?

Here's my perspective on FCPX and high end professional film and TV production.

The truth is that even FCP7 isn't that widely used in high end feature film and broadcast TV. There were exceptions but from personally experience maybe 1 in 5 features films that were released by a major film studio were cut on FCP. Maybe. Almost no scripted TV is cut on FCP because it's missing too many useful features. The majority of FCP users in film and TV are reality TV shows and independent features who are looking to save money.

A lot of professional FCP editors have been bugging Apple for years to add certain features which would make it more competitive in the film and TV market. For example, FCP7 is still not as good as AVID for shows with multiple editors. And most TV shows have many editors and assistant editors who all need to access the same projects. Instead of addressing these issues in FCPX, they did the opposite. They took out a LOT of features that they NEED. Not want. Not like. NEED.

I have no doubt that FCPX will get better with updates. I'm sure a lot of these missing features will eventually return. But we're not talking about just a handful of features. We're talking about dozens of crucial things that have been stripped out.

I think FCPX could eventually win back the feature film market. Given time. MAYBE. But I'm pretty sure they've permanently lost the broadcast TV market. Feature film editors cut one movie then move onto the next project. So they can take a bigger chance on newer editing systems. But TV shows will use the same editing system year after year, season after season. If they purchase an editing system, they want to know that it will still be supported a few years from now when the show is (hopefully) doing great in it's 7th season. If I'm TV post-producer, I'm going to be very wary of spending thousands of dollars to setup a dozen FCPX edit suites for my TV show after what Apple did with FCPX.

One more thing. Everything I just said applies specifically to the the feature film and broadcast TV market. FCPX could wind up being great for professionals who don't work in those markets and don't need all those features. People who work in things like corporate video, industrials, web content, etc...

Apple didn't make FCPX for fun. They made it to make editing faster and easier. If someone says they're good at video editing and can't use the faster and easier software then how good at editing are they really?

Well, we have a library of thousands of FCP projects that we've produced over the years. They're worth millions of dollars. I'd like to see any editor at all come in and work with any one of those projects in FCPX.

Hint: It can't be done since those projects can't be imported...yet.

I'm incredibly happy that Apple has changed direction on this and made FCP7 licenses available again along with announcing features coming soon along with import/export.

I think a lot of people like you misunderstood the argument all along. Almost every editor I know who tried FCPX, liked it in of itself. There are a ton of things to like about it, and everything new about it is fantastic.

However, it's not faster or easier if the functionality you need simply isn't there. That's what pros complained about, and Apple heard us and decided to do the right thing by us.

Personally, I love what we have now for road ahead of us for Final Cut.

Is someone that can't use FCPX really a good editor? Maybe in some environments they are but if they're so inflexible it really does bring in to question their basic computer competency. They really sound like they have to follow a printed out step by step guide taped to the desk and that FCPX completely threw them for a loop.

How sad that the enormous efforts of Apple's teams go completely unappreciated when all their goal ever was, was to make things better.

I'm not sure if you should be commenting here. Your comment about not being able to use iMovieProX by a good editor is way off. If you are a professional race car driver you could certainly drive a Yugo with a turbo engine. But why? It just couldn't do the job. That's the issue. Us professionals have been left with no real option with FCP7 being discontinued and FCPX not even close to being a working substitute.

Let the resistance from FCP users be proof to the haters that Apple fans aren't "sheeple". When Apple screws up, they will be raked over the coals even more vehemently.

A very good point nicely put.
I still maintain that Apple's only screw up was a matter of presentation, for lack of a bettter word. Adding the word Beta to fcpx and announcing a roadmap of some sort (not killing of fcp7 immediately) would have been a better way to introduce the 'future'. It wouldn't have prevented the 'iMovie Pro' criticism, but then that's the kind of criticism that makes people look old and defensive and is best countered with a shrug.

A very good point nicely put.
I still maintain that Apple's only screw up was a matter of presentation, for lack of a bettter word. Adding the word Beta to fcpx and announcing a roadmap of some sort (not killing of fcp7 immediately) would have been a better way to introduce the 'future'. It wouldn't have prevented the 'iMovie Pro' criticism, but then that's the kind of criticism that makes people look old and defensive and is best countered with a shrug.

Completely agree. Its really amazing to me that Apple did this. They have been masters at transitions (OS9->OSX, PPC->Intel both of which were far more complex). Coincidentally (?) the other bad transition they had was in the same team (iMovie HD '06 -> iMovie '08).

Maybe the folks running that division are just too bent on pushing everyone into the future, whether those people like it or not. They make great products (I admit iMovie '08 sucked originally, but with the updates since, its pretty awesome). But they just don't seem to be able to pull off the transitions seamlessly.

Is someone that can't use FCPX really a good editor? Maybe in some environments they are but if they're so inflexible it really does bring in to question their basic computer competency. They really sound like they have to follow a printed out step by step guide taped to the desk and that FCPX completely threw them for a loop.

How sad that the enormous efforts of Apple's teams go completely unappreciated when all their goal ever was, was to make things better.

You have zero idea how a post-production facility works. Zero. None. Absolutely no glimmer of an idea.

This is some absurd fanboyism that is frankly embarrassing. Apple's not your family. Apple is not your friend. Get over your bizarre need to defend them with utterly illogical and completely childish reasoning.

I don't think Apple realized how many people in the video editing community are out of touch with the rest of the software and tech industry. I think they figured editing professionals would know, as everyone else familiar with software releases already knows, that when Apple says they started over and made everything from scratch, that means features are going to have to be developed over again. Apparently many video editing professionals do not understand what it takes to FUNDAMENTALLY improve something like Final Cut Pro. That's okay though. If they can't keep up, I'm sure there are plenty of sharper new companies to take their place.

That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. This is software for PROFESSIONALS, who make a living producing and editing video. You don't replace the software they depend on with a half-finished shell of a product that can't do half of what the professionals need.

If you are going to rip it up and start over, then don't release the new software until it can fully replace the current software. One of the biggest boondoggles by Apple is that the new software can't import projects from Final Cut Pro 7. Video professionals often have to go back to old footage and re-edit it for new projects. They can't do it with FCP X, and it looks like they will never be able to.

Apple could get away with something like this with iMovie, since professionals don't make their living from it, but the Final Cut situation is a mess that's going to bite Apple hard. It proves once again that Steve Jobs is not a software person - otherwise he would never have allowed this, or iMovie, or QuickTiume X, or MobileMe, or some of the changes in iTunes (the artwork column is now really small and ugly). If he drove the software people like he drives the hardware people, this wouldn't happen.